D2H vs D70

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The D2H is on blowout at $1995 new from various places. At that price
it's almost an alternative to the D70. It's a lot bigger and heavier,
but faster and more rugged.

Is this something to seriously think about? Does the extra 2
megapixels in the D70 make a difference? One of my applications will
be a humongous document scanning project, so resolution might matter
there.

 

[Si]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http/phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xmzw2ysws.fsf_-_@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> The D2H is on blowout at $1995 new from various places. At that price
> it's almost an alternative to the D70. It's a lot bigger and heavier,
> but faster and more rugged.
>
> Is this something to seriously think about? Does the extra 2
> megapixels in the D70 make a difference? One of my applications will
> be a humongous document scanning project, so resolution might matter
> there.

Erm....scanning? With a DSLR?

Si.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
> > Is this something to seriously think about? Does the extra 2
> > megapixels in the D70 make a difference? One of my applications will
> > be a humongous document scanning project, so resolution might matter
> > there.
>
> Erm....scanning? With a DSLR?

Yes, maybe scanning isn't the right word. Document copying, if you want.

 

[Si]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http/phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xwtv6m4fu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
>> > Is this something to seriously think about? Does the extra 2
>> > megapixels in the D70 make a difference? One of my applications will
>> > be a humongous document scanning project, so resolution might matter
>> > there.
>>
>> Erm....scanning? With a DSLR?
>
> Yes, maybe scanning isn't the right word. Document copying, if you want.

Pointless exercise with a $2000 DSLR.

Si.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yep, do it with a $50 scanner.

"Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cqkocr$su4$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Paul Rubin" <http/phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7xwtv6m4fu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>> "Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
>>> > Is this something to seriously think about? Does the extra 2
>>> > megapixels in the D70 make a difference? One of my applications will
>>> > be a humongous document scanning project, so resolution might matter
>>> > there.
>>>
>>> Erm....scanning? With a DSLR?
>>
>> Yes, maybe scanning isn't the right word. Document copying, if you want.
>
> Pointless exercise with a $2000 DSLR.
>
> Si.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http/phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xmzw2ysws.fsf_-_@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> The D2H is on blowout at $1995 new from various places. At that price
> it's almost an alternative to the D70. It's a lot bigger and heavier,
> but faster and more rugged.
>
> Is this something to seriously think about? Does the extra 2
> megapixels in the D70 make a difference? One of my applications will
> be a humongous document scanning project, so resolution might matter
> there.

The D2H is more of a professional level camera. The extra 2 megapixels will
add slightly to the usable resolution, but the key word here is slight.
John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> writes:
> The D2H is more of a professional level camera. The extra 2
> megapixels will add slightly to the usable resolution, but the key
> word here is slight.

Thanks. Wow, I see the D1H (2.7 mp) is closing at under $1000 on
ebay. For pictorial use I'm sure it's almost as good as a D2H. In
fact I see there are D1's in the $500 range. That might be asking for
trouble though. I seem to remember the D1 had various bugs and
misfeatures that the D1H fixed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>Is this something to seriously think about? Does the extra 2
>>>megapixels in the D70 make a difference? One of my applications will
>>>be a humongous document scanning project, so resolution might matter
>>>there.
>>
>>Erm....scanning? With a DSLR?
>
>
> Yes, maybe scanning isn't the right word. Document copying, if you want.

Yes, you are right, you can do this but you need a lens that can focus
on objects that are as far as the document being copied and I am not
sure if the D70's lens can do this.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> Yep, do it with a $50 scanner.
>
> "Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cqkocr$su4$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>"Paul Rubin" <http/phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:7xwtv6m4fu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>>
>>>"Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>>>Is this something to seriously think about? Does the extra 2
>>>>>megapixels in the D70 make a difference? One of my applications will
>>>>>be a humongous document scanning project, so resolution might matter
>>>>>there.
>>>>
>>>>Erm....scanning? With a DSLR?
>>>
>>>Yes, maybe scanning isn't the right word. Document copying, if you want.
>>
>>Pointless exercise with a $2000 DSLR.
>>
>>Si.


The only pointless exercise as far as I can see, are the bunch of
ignorant idiots (like yourself) who congregate pointlessly in these
newsgroups sharing their stupid opinions freely with all those who are
willing to bite into them.

I've done the above exercise myself and it works, moron!

 

[Si]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cleo" <cleve@ccko.net> wrote in message
news:RiBzd.17213$LW1.11910@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Pete D wrote:
>>>Pointless exercise with a $2000 DSLR.
>>>
>>>Si.
>
>
> The only pointless exercise as far as I can see, are the bunch of ignorant
> idiots (like yourself) who congregate pointlessly in these newsgroups
> sharing their stupid opinions freely with all those who are willing to
> bite into them.
>
> I've done the above exercise myself and it works, moron!

What who you are calling a moron, you tosser. You've revealed just how
stupid you are with your previous post...

"Yes, you are right, you can do this but you need a lens that can focus on
objects that are as far as the document being copied and I am not sure if
the D70's lens can do this.."

.... which lens are you referring to?

To undertake the work the OP was referring to - you would ideally need a
macro lens.

However, I cannot believe (and this is perhaps where my 'ignorance' comes
into play) that the OP is seriously considering a DSLR as the correct tool
for copying docs.

Yes, I've used my DSLR for such work, but only when I haven't had access to
my scanner (out on assignment for example).

Si.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
> To undertake the work the OP was referring to - you would ideally need a
> macro lens.

Yes, I have a 55/2.8 AI Micro Nikkor. The D70 exposure meter won't work
with MF lenses but I'd use the histogram to set exposure.

> However, I cannot believe (and this is perhaps where my 'ignorance' comes
> into play) that the OP is seriously considering a DSLR as the correct tool
> for copying docs.

Yes, that is precisely what I'm considering.

> Yes, I've used my DSLR for such work, but only when I haven't had access to
> my scanner (out on assignment for example).

This is for originals that I really can't put in a scanner.

 

[Si]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http/phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xsm5srexp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
>> To undertake the work the OP was referring to - you would ideally need a
>> macro lens.
>
> Yes, I have a 55/2.8 AI Micro Nikkor. The D70 exposure meter won't work
> with MF lenses but I'd use the histogram to set exposure.
>
>> However, I cannot believe (and this is perhaps where my 'ignorance' comes
>> into play) that the OP is seriously considering a DSLR as the correct
>> tool
>> for copying docs.
>
> Yes, that is precisely what I'm considering.
>
>> Yes, I've used my DSLR for such work, but only when I haven't had access
>> to
>> my scanner (out on assignment for example).
>
> This is for originals that I really can't put in a scanner.

Then that's an altogether different story? Physical area, thickness?

Si.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
> > This is for originals that I really can't put in a scanner.
>
> Then that's an altogether different story? Physical area, thickness?

Varies. I'd hope to get useable results with a 9x12" area of small
print, e.g. from shooting a full page of a city phone book. In some
instances the originals are on microfiche and I have various schemes I
might try for shooting that. Don't bother telling me to use a fiche
scanner. The appropriate kind costs about $15K and is way slower than
using a camera.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http/phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xsm5srexp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
> > To undertake the work the OP was referring to - you would ideally need a
> > macro lens.
>
> Yes, I have a 55/2.8 AI Micro Nikkor. The D70 exposure meter won't work
> with MF lenses but I'd use the histogram to set exposure.
>
> > However, I cannot believe (and this is perhaps where my 'ignorance'
comes
> > into play) that the OP is seriously considering a DSLR as the correct
tool
> > for copying docs.
>
> Yes, that is precisely what I'm considering.
>
> > Yes, I've used my DSLR for such work, but only when I haven't had access
to
> > my scanner (out on assignment for example).
>
> This is for originals that I really can't put in a scanner.

If this is what you are using it for, I don't see why the D70 wouldn't
suffice. Shoot in RAW and adjust the balance in the software. Remember the
55mm macro will become an 82mm on both of the cameras. Make sure you use a
tripod.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> If this is what you are using it for, I don't see why the D70
> wouldn't suffice. Shoot in RAW and adjust the balance in the
> software. Remember the 55mm macro will become an 82mm on both of
> the cameras. Make sure you use a tripod.

I would use a copy stand with lights. The D2H is just a faster and
more rugged mechanism than the D70, and it can meter with my MF
Nikkors for non-copy use.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:6LHzd.89262$K7.9371@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Paul Rubin" <http/phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7xsm5srexp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> > "Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
> > > To undertake the work the OP was referring to - you would ideally need
a
> > > macro lens.
> >
> > Yes, I have a 55/2.8 AI Micro Nikkor. The D70 exposure meter won't work
> > with MF lenses but I'd use the histogram to set exposure.
> >
> > > However, I cannot believe (and this is perhaps where my 'ignorance'
> comes
> > > into play) that the OP is seriously considering a DSLR as the correct
> tool
> > > for copying docs.
> >
> > Yes, that is precisely what I'm considering.
> >
> > > Yes, I've used my DSLR for such work, but only when I haven't had
access
> to
> > > my scanner (out on assignment for example).
> >
> > This is for originals that I really can't put in a scanner.
>
> If this is what you are using it for, I don't see why the D70 wouldn't
> suffice. Shoot in RAW and adjust the balance in the software. Remember
the
> 55mm macro will become an 82mm on both of the cameras. Make sure you use
a
> tripod.
>
>
Also a IR release would be a good idea.


--
Michael Brown
Melbourne Australia
www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:09:07 -0000, "Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"Paul Rubin" <http/phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
>news:7xwtv6m4fu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>> "Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
>>> > Is this something to seriously think about? Does the extra 2
>>> > megapixels in the D70 make a difference? One of my applications will
>>> > be a humongous document scanning project, so resolution might matter
>>> > there.
>>>
>>> Erm....scanning? With a DSLR?
>>
>> Yes, maybe scanning isn't the right word. Document copying, if you want.
>
>Pointless exercise with a $2000 DSLR.

Why? I got a Coolpix 4500 for just that purpose because many archives
(I write regional histories) will not let you scan or copy very old
documents but they will let me image them with ambient light in the
document work room.

I'm looking at get a D2H or D100 or D70 and will continue to do the
same with it if the need arise although the Pivoting sensor/lens on
the 4500 with a small tripod is perfect for document capture. I've
used in also in homes to copy letters where there wasn't a copier or
scanner in 50 miles.

So if you have not worked in a field don't say it's pointless.
**************************************************************

"Historians, rather like primitive moles,
Live purposeless lives in particular holes,
Which they dig with their noses, or else with their toeses
(A few invented small shovels and hoeses)
They're burrowing blindly in Byzantine tunnels
Constructed like sinuous funnels;
They're burrowing busily, back to the past:
A steady regression to nowhere-fast."

"The Lesson for Yesterday"
David Hackett Fisher

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:


>
> Yes, I have a 55/2.8 AI Micro Nikkor. The D70 exposure meter won't work
> with MF lenses but I'd use the histogram to set exposure.
>
Sorry, I don't know if you have DSLR experience. Note that you may have
to 'waste' a few shots to get the exposure set, b/c you don't get a
histogram on a DSLR until after the shot. So it will entail a bit of
trial and error. This should not be a problem with a repetitive type
copying setup. Just so you don't get blind sided.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike G." <m.golner@comcast.net> writes:
> Sorry, I don't know if you have DSLR experience. Note that you may
> have to 'waste' a few shots to get the exposure set,

That's ok, they don't cost anything with digital ;-).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 26 Dec 2004 12:34:34 -0800, Paul Rubin <http/phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid>
wrote:

>"Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> writes:
>> > This is for originals that I really can't put in a scanner.
>>
>> Then that's an altogether different story? Physical area, thickness?
>
>Varies. I'd hope to get useable results with a 9x12" area of small
>print, e.g. from shooting a full page of a city phone book. In some
>instances the originals are on microfiche and I have various schemes I
>might try for shooting that. Don't bother telling me to use a fiche
>scanner. The appropriate kind costs about $15K and is way slower than
>using a camera.

I would think what you want should be perfectly possible.

I made the following image "just to see what it would look like" when I
first got my D70 a couple of months back.

http/www.g-holden.dircon.co.uk/photos/book-crop.jpg

The link shows a 640x480 crop of the 3000x2008 original. The source book
would have been about 9"x12", so the crop shows something like 2.8" wide by
1.9" high.

The shot was taken with the kit 18-70mm lens (at 44mm), overhead bedroom
light (no flash or special lights), hand-held f/4.5 at 1/20th. All I've
done to the image was stretch the histogram in an old version of Paintshop.

While not "archive quality", it's a reasonable image (the whole page can be
read easily). If I can get this by just "playing" (it was one of the first
100 shots I took with the camera), then you should be able to get a pretty
decent record with a bit more care and knowledge.

Hope this is of use.

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.